On Friday 10 July 2009 21:20:45 Shinya Kuribayashi wrote: > Peter Tyser wrote: > >> Before verifying MIPS builds, I'd like to make sure that why you take > >> lib/$(ARCH)/ alternative, not $(ARCH)/lib/. If there were any > >> discussion on #IRC, is there any chance we could share the summary or > >> decision to follow? > > > > There was no discussion, /lib/$(ARCH) just made more sense to me and it > > was functionally a direct translation from lib_$(ARCH) to lib/$(ARCH). > > > > Using $(ARCH)/lib wouldn't clean up the top-level directory structure > > much and would open a can of worms that I'm not prepared to deal with at > > this time. For example, if there was an architecture specific > > Oops, I wanted to say "arch/$(ARCH)/lib/", not $(ARCH)/lib/, sorry.
i thought that originally, but i dont care much either way. having arch/$(ARCH)/ would line up with u-boot-v2 and the linux kernel though. i dont understand needing a lib/ subdir under arch/$(ARCH)/ though. > > While we're talking about it, I'd always thought it would be nice to > > split out all the cmd_* files from common/ into their own command/ > > directory similar to u-boot-v2. > > Ack. The directory structure in u-boot-v2 looks nice, at least, to me, > anyway. makes sense to me too -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
